Polido vs CA and Mariano P.
Gasat o Ordered PNB’s manager to release upon Polido’s request the money she
J. Carpio Morales | July 10, 2007
 After the death of her husband Jacinto, Eugenia Duque Polido (Polido), tried to
withdraw the joint savings deposit they maintained PNB.
 She failed to do so because Mariano Gasat, who claimed to be the couple's
adopted child, objected thereto.
 Eugenia Polido thus filed a complaint before RTC Tarlac agains Gasat.
o She prayed for an Order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining and restraining the defendant and all persons acting under
him from preventing the officers or employee[s] of the Philippine National
Bank, Camiling, Tarlac Branch from releasing in favor of Polido the
money deposited
o She also prayed for the declaration that the Gasat is not the adopted child
of Polido and her husband.
 In his answer with compulsory counterclaim, Gasat claims that Polido and her
husband adopted him as their child [NOTE, in a subsequent Omnibus Motiion he
withdrew this defense]
o He annexed as proof a photocopy of a MTC Order dated September 23,
1970 ("In the Matter of the Adoption of the Minors, Lea D. Tomas and
Mariano Gasat, JACINTO POLIDO AND EUGENIA POLIDO,
Petitioners,") and a copy of a Certification from the MTC Clerk of Court
o He also said decree had become final and executory;
o Finally, he claims that Polido cannot withdraw any amount from the bank
account because she should follow legal procedures governing
settlement of the estate of a deceased
 Gasat further argued in his Opposition to the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction
and Motion to Set the Affirmative Defenses for Preliminary Hearing, that even
assuming that his adoption paper is ineffective, he cannot be deprived of his
inheritance from the Estate of Jacinto Polido because said deceased and Polido
are childless and all the properties subject of inheritance are exclusive
properties of Jacinto, the same being inherited from his late father, NARCISO
POLIDO who died in Hawaii, USA.
o He claims that the estate of Narciso was inhehrited by his two children,
Jacinto and Petra P. Gasat
o Petra Gasat was survived be her husband and 7 children, including
Mariano P. Gasat.
o Thus, citing Article 1001 of the Civil Code,1 the heirs of Jacinto include
his wife and Petra’s 7 children who are entitled to ½
 Gasat then moved to convert the case to an action for partition of the estate of his
grandfather Narciso Polido, father of Jacinto and Petra and to require Polido to file
ITRs and pay the estate tax due.
 On the other hand, Polido filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
 The TC denied Gasat’s motion and granted Polido’s.
o It declared that Gasat is not the adopted child
1
ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be
entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.
2 If a bank has knowledge of the death of a person, who maintained a bank deposit account alone, or jointly with
another, it shall not allow any withdrawal from the said deposit account unless the Commissioner had certified
that the taxes imposed thereon by this Title have been paid; Provided, however, That the administrator of the
estate or any one (1) of the heirs of the decedent may, upon authorization by the Commissioner, withdraw an
deposited or her husband Jacinto.
o
 The CA first dismissed Gasat's appeal for failure to pay docket’s fees on time.
 Upon MR, the CA admitted Gasat’s docket fees.
 Hence the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
o Polido faults the CA in in relaxing the rule on the payment of docket fees
on the ground of substantial justice.
W/N THE CA ERRED IN RELAXING THE RULE ON NON-PAYMENT OF APPELLATE DOCKET
FEES - NO
 Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket
fees, the Court also recognizes that its strict application is qualified by the following:
1. Failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not
automatic, dismissal
2. Such power should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound
discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great
deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances
 ITC: The relaxation by the appellate court of the rule on non-payment of the appellate docket
fee appears justified as a perusal of the records of the case shows persuasive and weighty
reasons to give due course to the appeal.
Instead of remanding the case to the appellate court, however, this Court, in the interest of speedy
dispensation of justice especially given that the main issue is a question of law, now passes on
the merits of the appeal of Gasat.
W/N THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ITS JUDGMENT – Yes.
 The Court noted that Gasat’s Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim raised other
issues, independent of the adoptive filiation and would defeat Polido’s main cause
of action.
 The Court noted that even if the court will issue an Order restraining Gasat from
claiming the bank account, Polido cannot withdraw any amount because it is
a PART OF THE ESTATE OF JACINTO
o As provided for by laws, before the bank allows any withdrawal,
Polido has to follow certain procedures namely:
1. Payment of Estate Tax, if any;
2. BIR Tax Clearance;
3. Present a duly published Extrajudicial Partition executed by the heirs
adjudicating said amount to such heir, unless a competent Court issues an
Order allowing the plaintiff to withdraw [from] said account
 The Court noted that Polido and Jacinto were childless; hence, Gasat could inherit
from Jacinto, pursuant. Hence, pursuant to Section 97 of the NIRC2, a bank shall
not allow any withdrawal from the said account absent the required certification
from the CIR.
amount not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) without the said certification. For this purpose, all
withdrawal slips shall contain a statement to the effect that all of the joint depositors are still living at the time of
withdrawal by any one of the joint depositors and such statement shall be under oath by the said depositors.